Tue. Nov 29th, 2022

Bijan and his ridiculous hat

Mayor Miguel Pulido canceled Tuesday night’s Santa Ana City Council meeting after a man refused to remove a cap with an anti-police expletive on it, according to the OC Register.



The young man in question, identified as “Bijan” is affiliated with Santa Ana CopWatch. They posted this message on their Facebook page after the City Council meeting was shut down, “The city council meeting got shut down. The mayor and the cops tried a bluff saying that if we didn’t leave that we would get arrested. Over a hat. The cops were even showing off their cuffs. We stayed and it got shut down. Media was there so expect it in the news. In solidarity with all survivors and victims of police violence. From Santa Ana to Ferguson to Palestine: F*ck the Police.”

These actions were clearly premeditated.  The ruckus actually began over a month ago at a previous Council meeting when Mayor Miguel Pulido was upset that while he was trying to give service awards to two Santa Ana police officers there were protestors seated in the Council Chambers holding “f*ck the police” signs.  No one on the City Council said or did anything about that and in fact they all ignored the police too.  Pulido was the only one who congratulated them on their awards.  The meeting left a very negative impression on the members of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association and their President, John Franks, later sent a stern letter to the City Council announcing that unless they could control what happened at their meetings he would not allow his officers to receive awards in Chambers but instead they would be given out at the SAPD headquarters.

SAPD at City Council meeting

The City Council’s lack of respect for the police cost Council Member Michele Martinez their endorsement, which they gave to Ward 2 challenger Mirna Velasquez.  And they also endorsed Pulido instead of Councilman Roman Reyna, for Mayor.  Reyna and Martinez are thought to have gang ties and they both were involved in shutting down the SAPD’s strike force.

Pulido had the City Manager and his staff draft a decorum ordinance which was supposed to be discussed and voted on by the City Council tonight.  But the protestors came to the meeting intent on disrupting it and that is exactly what happened.

Free speech has its limits.  Wearing apparel with the F word on it in public meetings is uncalled for.  These meetings are televised.  It is one thing to videotape officers and to protest their actions when they go bad.  But what happened tonight was ridiculous and we applaud Pulido for taking a stand against these irresponsible protestors.

By Editor

The New Santa Ana blog has been covering news, events and politics in Santa Ana since 2009.

83 thoughts on “Young man’s rude protest results in the shut down of tonight’s City Council meeting”
  1. One punk and his friends ruin the meeting, the freedom of speech rights for dozens of people. I hope they are happy that everyone lost their right to speak.

      1. Sean if you start seeking out those security scanner contracts for city hall make sure that you disclose it on your planning board statement of business interests. You know, like the one Bacerra was refusing to fill out because of his lobbying business.

        1. Matt you needn’t worry because I have no problem giving full disclosures be it oral or written. You see the councilmember that appointed me, Sal Tinajero, and I actually believe in transparency and open government. It was Sal that championed the “Sunshine Ordinance” from the beginning.

          There are other members of the city council that simply see open government and transparency as slogans to use when attacking Mayor Pulido or running for re-election. The voters hopefully will not be fooled by their double talk.

    1. “One punk and his friends ruin the meeting ..” I agree cook – the pinche cabrone mayor and his clown troop council did ruin the meeting.

  2. The behavior from these agitators is getting out of hand. Thank you Mayor Pulido for your leadership on this and for striving to bring decorum back to the council chambers. The recent verbal attacks on police officers receiving awards at the council meeting is disgusting.

    It is time for the good and decent people of Santa Ana to take back our council meetings from this loud mouthed hooligans.

  3. Let’s see how long Benavides and Martinez’s contributors put up with this NONSENSE.

    Vince is a Millionare and all about MONEY and POWER.

    Let’s see how the “progressives” respond.

    Tell the thirty three victims of GUN VIOLENCE in Santa Ana this year to: “F#^k the police”.

    1. Interesting response you two,or three. It was clear that this was premeditated and anticipated by all sides. That is why the council had it on the agenda to propose a new version of the “decorum” code. However, thanks to the failed bluff by the police vs. Concerned citizens this issue will now be amplified big time. It will be resolved by the the legal experts beyond Sonia Carvahalo as she is not stupid enough to make this about her semi-expertise.
      Expect the ACLU and others to be consulted by the Voice of OC and government watchdog groups. Depending on their opinions and judgement, you will see the activist decide on a fair response to the SAPD Creating distractions from the real investigations by the F.B.I. about their ongoing police abuse. People in America do not desire a Police State.

      1. It is exactly this type of behavior that turns law abiding citizens that may be sympathetic to their cause against them. Being respectful to others in the audience and carrying themselves with some dignity would be beneficial to their movement.

        Acting like uncivil idiots loses the battle for public opinion. Surely they can present their position in a civil manner with the use of profane clothing and language, right Matt?

        The next time they are in danger or someone commits a crime against them maybe they should call Bijan and leave the SAPD for the rest of the people in this town who can act in a civil manner.

        1. “F*ck the Police” is a rude thing to say. I agree Sean. But a city council that proposes strict censorship of public commentators for using council persons names and “the police” in their conscientious critiques is going to invite a firm resistance from the people against the abuses of power by the closed and corrupt system. Editor ought to do an article that exposes the agenda item that was being placed tonight that tightened the “decorum” standards and censored negative critique of people(politicians) by name.

          1. This form of protest is totally stupid and pointless. If you want to make a difference then start a blog. This blog is currently averaging over 2,300 views a day. When we stopped the Vector Control District from spraying poison in our city we netted over sixty thousand views in three days. Now that my friend is how you change the system.

      2. Matt,

        I get what you are saying, I like you grew up in a decent environment, but ALWAYS championed the oppressed. I GET THAT.

        This however, has the undertones of a political act by aggresive activists trying to manipulate the law.

        YOU ARE FREE TO FLY ON A PLANE, YOU ARE NOT FREE TO HIJACK ONE.

        I am nearly done with this political bullsh*t that has ensconsed Santa Ana. In four hours, I will pick up a half dozen kids, hop the fence at the golf course and wath the BLOOD MOON. My seventy year-old neighbor will meet us at NORMS at 5:30 am and sponsor breakfast.

        Instead of this BULLSH*T and silly endeavors, why don’t you (and your Mom) join me in changing sh*t a few at a time, those kids will break out, not the ones wearing hats at meetings that say “F*CK THE POLICE”

        I find it most troubling that those that promote this activity on the council either have no children or have abandoned them.

        IT’S COMMUNITY VALUES. NOT POLITICAL VALUES.

  4. In Solidarity with Santa Ana Cop Watch and the 2,100 hundred Palestinians murdered this summer by the Nazi Israeli military funded by the bought politicians of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.

    1. Why not in solidarity with all the innocent victims of gang violence in our city Matt? Why not in solidarity with all the families and small children living in fear of these street terrorists that occupy many neighborhoods in Santa Ana? Why not wear a hat that says “fu*k the gangs”?

      I wish you anti-police, anti-government, anti-civility types had as much anger against the street gangs and thugs plaguing our city as you do against the good men and women of the SAPD.

      SUCH A SHAME!!!

  5. I tried to respond to you Sean. But Editor, a.k.a Pulido’s Propaganda Minister censored me because i used the F word.

    1. Matt,

      If Art is Pulido’s “Minister of Propaganda” then I guess Adam Elmahrek at the Voice of OC fills that same role for Benavides and Reyna.

          1. That will only escalate tensions on both sides. You and Mill are sounding a lot like reactionaries.

            Use your head Pulido – ignore the hat.

  6. Pulido’s actions give the anarchists the attention they seek. Better to ignore the hat and conduct the business of the City.

    1. Pulido made a stand for all of the decent people in this city. Santa Ana’s families know the problem is not the cops. The problem is the gang bangers – who incidentally are supporting Reyna, Benavides and Martinez.

        1. When you think about it the majority of our residents are against the gangs. Including you! But your misplaced animus against Pulido has blinded you. Too bad. On November 4 the people of this city will reject Reyna and his gang infested slate.

        2. ABC7 is reporting that a knife was found in the chambers. Obviously one of the rebel rousers left it behind in fear of being patted down by the SAPD.

          Art, you and I have been calling for metal detectors to be installed at the Council Chambers for years. They need to start doing pat downs before people go into meetings going forward.

          Mike, I stand with the decent, law abiding residents that behave in a civil manner in our community. I hope to God that is more than 1% of our population. Certainly you don’t support this type of behavior, do you?

          1. Of course I don’t approve of this behavior – but you also need to look at what triggers the irrational actors – ignore the hat mr. mayor.

          2. Editor – “Unlike the .. gang banger slate, Pulido doesn’t bend knee to anarchists and terrorists.”

            And that is the attitude that leads to violent confrontation – better to ignore the hat mr. mayor.

  7. You all seem to be under gross misconceptions about the first amendment, namely its “limits.”

    Court after court after court has upheld an individuals’ right to use *and* wear expletives in a public setting. Heck, they have even upheld their right to wear “KKK” in a city council chamber which *should* be far more offensive than the dreaded “F” word.

    The only “limits” to free speech are those along the lines of “fire” in a crowded theater, but one could argue if that is even speech. We even live in an age where *money* is considered “free speech” but a hat that—offensively or no—expresses someones viewpoint isn’t. Using the First Amendment isn’t about saying things politely or stepping on people’s egos, it is very much about the right to say things that are controversial or—god forbid—offensive.

    I will paraphrase Voltaire, one of the muses for our democracy: I may not like what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it.

    If only the author, and the people on this blog, were American enough to have such courage.

    “Clearly premeditated” is quite a laughable intuition of yours, assuming you are implying that members of CopWatch intended to shut down the meeting. Having spoken to them *before* the meeting, I can tell you that their only intention was to address the council—via. the forum—, about police abuses. As for the Council, they intended to arrest the man in the hat under the impression everyone would leave at their say so. They were wrong. So you’re free to make inferences based on your own psychic abilities, but I am also free to laugh at them, hard.

    Here’s a democracy lesson for you folks. A city council chamber is not intended to be a place where the public goes and steps on city council’s toes and brown-noses them and pleads for attention. It is a place where the decisions of elected officials are to be viewed by the public and for the public to *freely* express their viewpoints before said decision.

    The “‘protesters’ infringed on everyone *else’s* first amendment rights” “argument” is also completely bogus. This was not a premeditated or staged protest, they were going to speak just like you were, Mr. Cook. One man was denied this right because his first amendment protected hat was “offensive” to the mayor, and he refused to give it up nor bow to intimidation. Others stood with him. The *City Council* “denied” you your first amendment right (opportunity to exercise that right would be more accurate considering *you* were not in any way censored) because they decided that posturing over an offensive hat to garner police support before an election was more important than the business of the day.

    But please Mr. Cook, write your same BS all over the internet because you got inconvenienced and you wanna blame the “punk kids” rather than the people who actually denied you your opportunity to speak.

    As for your TV “argument,” the F word is far from the most scandalous thing on *daytime* TV and hasn’t been for the longest time. Flip through daytime TV and you can hear subject matter far worse from Law and Order: SVU or many, many, other shows. As for 7-10 at night…please.

    And the “why don’t they wear F— the Gangs hats” quip and the crime deal. First of all, the former is a red herring. Yeah, gangs suck, they are often depraved and exploitative. They just don’t do it under the guise of “upholding the law.” Police on the other hand abuse their authority, regularly use excessive or even completely unwarranted force, and even commit murder. The big difference is when a gang member does it and gets caught he is thrown in jail. When a police officer does it and gets caught he gets a slap on the wrist….*if that*. The news is full of examples if y’all can be bothered to look for them.

    You throw around the word “anarchist” and “terrorist” but I doubt you understand what either of them mean. The latter has absolutely no validity in relation to the “protesters,” not one threat was volleyed at city council, unless you are counting: “*if* you arrest these people for exercising the first amendment you will have a h— of a lawsuit on your hands” as a terrorist threat. In fact, the only validity of that word in relation to last night would go toward the men who were brought in carrying batons to outnumber the “protesters.”

    So go ahead, and applaud the mayor and the police force for standing up to that big, bad, anarchist who came to city council to speak about police abuses while wearing a hat that expressed his views which to some may be considered offensive. Sure, he might not have “shown class,” the hat was probably even “rude.”

    “F— the Police” might be offensive, but god forbid it ever becomes cause for arrest.

    Given your article, I doubt you would care though. Enjoy your ego driven soapbox, counting how many views you get as if its something important.

    Have a cracker on me.

      1. I will repost my apparently deleted response: “Fortunately, the fact that many people do not share my views does not discount my position, nor does it make your argumentation logically valid.”

        1. Orangeok, I appreciate your response and opinion.

          So far many have expressed the opinion that the man with the hat rights trumped the mayor with the responsibilities (rights). Next time they are at a council meeting they should read the rules of decorum printed on the reverse side of the speaker’s card.

          My opinion is the man with the hat doesn’t know and never read “the rules of decorum” and the mayor had the thankless job of enforcing the rules as written.

          1. cook!!

            The speaker card printed “rules of decorum” are of themselves violations of the California Brown Act and the US Constitution.

  8. Was it rude to wear the hat? For the majority of people I would say yes. Was it illegal? Most likely not because of Cohen v. California, where the court overturned a conviction of a man arrested for wearing a jacket that read “F^ck the Draft.” Profanity alone is not necessarily unprotected speech. You get into unprotected speech territory when you use what are called “fighting words,” words that intend to cause imminent violence. In Resek v Huntington Beach, the court found that using abusive and sarcastic language towards a police officer is not a basis for arrest. Acosta v Costa Mesa and White v Norwalk both affirm that rules of decorum can be enforced if and only if an actual disruption of a meeting occurs, not solely for insolent or impertinent language.

    So who really disrupted the meeting? As far as i can tell Bijan has the legal right to wear dissident and insolent language on his hat. I believe Pulido made a mistake here. They could have conducted the meeting in a professional manner, ignoring the rude language, just like city council did a month ago. Sonia Carvalho may not have had a chance to stop him this time, because the Mayor is trying to make up for the last time anti-police protesters embarrassed police officers during an award ceremony.

    See video of Sonia Carvalho’s advice just a month ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6xM7pgS_7c

    Not sure what changed since then…

    Offended or not, people have a right to express impertinent dissident political views as long as they are not causing an actual disruption to a meeting. Pulido was wrong to threaten to arrest people for expressing 1st amendment speech, wrong to not know the Brown Act after 28 years working in city council, wrong to deny the entire city from conducting public business, wrong for denying the meeting to the entire community, and wrong for putting the city at risk of litigation for a political gesture to the POA.

      1. Has anyone else noticed that when Editor has been blown away in a debate that he generally changes the subject? Of course you have …….

        1. A knife was found in Council chambers after the punks were cleared out. Clearly Pulido did the right thing. I hope the City considers my proposal to prevent these problems from happening again.

          1. Was it a big ‘ole stabby – stabby Bowie knife or a legal 3 in. Buck knife?
            People carry knives all the time.

          2. Again the issue here is that it was discarded. Obviously its owner shouldn’t have been carrying it. I’m guessing that it would have been a probation violation.

          3. You’re kidding, right Mike? You don’t actually believe that it is okay to bring a weapon into a city council meeting, do you?

            Regardless of the size you can’t bring a knife into a federal building, the courthouse or into the airport. Why on earth do you think it is appropriate to bring one into the city council chambers?

            How long will it be before someone brings a gun into the chambers?

            I’m sure if any type of violence occurs you will be the first to ask why didn’t Pulido or any of the other council members that you dislike do anything to prevent it from happening.

          4. Glad to hear that. I hope we can get metal detectors installed as soon as possible. Until then SAPD should wand everyone entering the chambers with a hand held detector.

      2. The community faces many problems, criminal gangs and police abuse are among them. Just because gangs are a problem doesn’t mean that police are not.

  9. ACLU letter to SA Council & Mayor Pulido (excerpt)

    RE: Free Speech Rights at Public Meetings of the Santa Ana City Council

    Dear Mayor Pulido and Council Members:

    We write to express our strong concern with Santa Ana’s policy and practice of restricting speech at open and public meetings of the Santa Ana City Council. Specifically, the Council’s interpretation of Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 2-104 (as currently written) and the City’s actions at the October 7, 2014 Council meeting, constitute viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Liberty Speech Clause of the California Constitution. Accordingly, we urge you to: 1) immediately issue a public statement where you affirm the right of the public to openly criticize and/or express views contrary to those of the councilor others; 2) provide training to the Council, its staff, and its police department to ensure that the public’s free speech rights to attend and participate in Santa Ana City Council meetings are not unlawfully restricted or further chilled; and, 3) carefully review any proposed revisions or amendments to the Council’s rules of decorum to ensure that they pass constitutional muster.

    1. Nice to know that you support the ACLU….Better not tell your Republican friends they may not let you into the club anymore.

      1. Not a “moot point” – the ACLU is directly referring to: “the Council’s interpretation of Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 2-104 (as currently written) and the City’s actions at the October 7, 2014 Council meeting.”

          1. Editor – Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

            The ACLU is saying that SA’s current “policy and practice of restricting free speech .. constitute viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Liberty Speech Clause of the California Constitution.”

          2. Yes indeed – they are referring to the “rude young man” – whose constitutional right to free speech was violated – and to the Council’s pattern and history of such violations.

            You do realize that Council and the Mayor are sworn to uphold the Constitution – don’t you?

          3. That was unfortunate – and it is all on the disruption caused by our inept mayor and council.

          4. If this were not involving Mayor Pulido and Councilmembers that Mike dislikes he would be ripping the kid in the hat. It’s clear that this call demanding “free speech” depends on who is speaking.

            However I am glad to see Mike has come around to supporting the Occupy Movement and the ACLU. Welcome to the left.

          5. Perhaps Mike has forgotten that the ACLU punked his Usual Suspects friends when they were sued and had to tear down the French Park anti-Mexican barricades.

          6. I forgot the ACLU was behind that…I became a card carrying member because of their efforts to tear down those unconstitutional barriers.

  10. When Sean Mill & Mr. Editor switch the subject to me I know that I have won the debate.

    What will you both say when the Mayor humbles himself to the public tonight? – and he will …..

    1. Hey Mike where was this newfound dedication to free speech when you tried to have Sean removed from the Planning Commission when he rightfully referred to you as a nimby?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Verified by MonsterInsights